The Downsize DC Foundation exists to show the difference between the innovation fostered in the voluntary sector, and the stagnation and harm done by the coercive government sector. We seek to bring a little balance to a world in which news reporting reduces everything to a question of politics and government, when in reality most human progress is created by neither. Most human progress comes from individuals and voluntary institutions. But are the advances we highlight here really the result of the voluntary sector only?
It's a good question, and the good answer is “no.” Much of what we praise here on this website is the result of scientific research, and some of that research is federally funded (though it is usually difficult to tell how much in any specific case).
It is no part of our argument that programs funded by coercive taxation never do any good. We make no such absolutest claim. We simply claim that government coercion in general, and Big Government in particular, do vastly more harm than good. Likewise, we do not claim that the voluntary sector causes no harm. We simply claim that voluntary efforts in general, and business and science in particular, are the source of most of what is good (and getting better) in the world.
So we assert. But doesn't our focus on scientific advances, and on advances in biology in particular, contradict our claim? Aren't many of these advances, especially in biology, dependent on federal funding? The answer is no.
John Tabin makes the following observation:
“About two-thirds of American R&D is now funded by the private sector, with taxpayers picking up the tab on the remaining third. As recently as 1970, the figures were reversed: Two-thirds of R&D funding came from Washington. Meanwhile, total R&D funding has in recent decades grown sharply . It should be no surprise that when government support stays relatively flat, the private sector more than picks up the slack.”
But why is that? Why do people pay for research, without being coerced to do so by government? You might as well ask why people pay for food or blow-up toys for the backyard swimming pool. People pay for things they want. And people, at all levels, from your neighbor to the wealthiest tycoon or corporation, want scientific breakthroughs to improve their lives. Above all, they want biological breakthroughs to improve their health and lengthen their time on earth. So they pay for these things, through donations or investments, because they expect to reap the benefits, both personally and financially.
Looked at this way the obvious question is not, “why would people pay for research,” but rather, “why should we permit government to do so?” Do politicians have some special expertise that enables them to choose what research should be funded, and what should not? Of course not. Politicians are good at getting elected. That is their expertise. And this expertise carries through to the bureaucrats they appoint to make scientific decisions for them. These people are appointed for political reasons first, and the science is an afterthought.
An entrepreneur investing in R&D does so with the intent of discovering something useful and profitable. The auto-mechanic who donates to cancer research places his money where he thinks it will do the most to achieve his goal of curing cancer. The incentives are aligned with the goal (even if the auto-mechanic has no more expertise than the Congressman). But in politics the incentives are skewed. Are research decisions made to achieve a research objective, or to satisfy a political agenda?
Consider Senator Frist. He was against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research when that seemed politically expedient, but now that President Bush is a lame-duck, Senator Frist changes his position. And given the public opinion polls on this issue it's easy to assume that the change is politically motivated. Which begs a question . . .
If so many people favor embryonic stem cell research then why does the federal government need to coerce them at gun point (taxation) to pay for it? The answer, of course, is that no such coercion is required, because people pay for the things they desire. Indeed, it would be very helpful to Downsize DC, and cut taxes accordingly, so people would have more money to invest in the research they value most.

Blog commenting is currently under construction. In the meantime, you can
send an email if there's something you'd like
to tell us.

What Can We Do For You?

We can help you downsize the federal government, if you want that. All you have
to do is join. It's free! In return...

We'll give you an army.

We're recruiting a huge army of supporters to work for what you want.

We'll give you influence.

The Downsize DC Army will exert relentless, resistance-numbing pressure on Congress.

We'll make your voice heard.

We'll use our growing army to make your beliefs heard by everyone, everywhere, every day.

We'll give you winning strategies.

Ideas like our "Read the Bills Act" and the "One Subject at a Time Act" will give
you the leverage to win the public debate, control Congress, and Downsize DC!

We'll give you powerful tools.

Your free membership includes a subscription to our free email newsletter, the
Consent Chronicle, which national talk show host Jerry Hughes calls by far the
best newsletter he receives.

You'll be able to use our Educate the Powerful SystemSM to pressure
Congress. It's easy. All it takes is a few mouse clicks and keyboard strokes.
You can do it in your bathrobe while you're drinking your morning coffee, or
during a break at work.

You'll also gain access to our 16-page strategy document, "The Downsize DC Vision."
You'll learn about important insights like "ignoring an axiom," and powerful strategies
like "picking off the herd." One reader called this document "the unified field
theory" of political change.

To gain these benefits, just enter your email address in the box below and
hit Subscribe!